Update: New Sub Forum added to cater for cycling safety discussions, so no longer a 'one and only helmet thread'

Welcome to the helmet thread. All discussion relating to the use (mandatory or otherwise) of helmets belongs here. All other new MHL (or similar) threads will be closed and a link given redirecting members to this thread. Existing threads will eventually be redirected to here if they continue to get traffic.

If you feel your discussion warrants a seperate topic, please PM AU bicycles or a Moderator with details prior to posting your thread, or it will be locked. Obvious exceptions are in the Marketplace or Bike & Gear Review sections.

Standard forum guidelines apply in this thread, no flaming, no personal attacks etc etc. If you havent read the guidelines or need a refresher, you can find them here. If you feel a post has breached the guidelines, please do not respond as this is where flaming often begins. Instead, click on the report post button at the bottom of the post and the moderators will take appropriate action where required.

Note: Given how heated helmet threads have become in the past, breaches of the guidelines in this thread will be given very little tolerance. Please think before you post.

}SkOrPn--7 wrote:My parents took it upon them self so make Helmets Mandatory when I was born that was 50 years ago been wearing it since every day............................

here is what a professor say about them mandatory laws..

ProfessorChrisRissel wrote:I do not advocate for repealing seat-belt legislation, because the evidence is very, very strong that they reduced head injuries in the community.

This is not the case with bicycle helmets. I agree that no one study answers all the questions one might have about the legislation, and my study did not attempt to do this.

I agree helmets offer some protection to the head at an individual level, but the evidence indicates that the effects of legislation are not apparent at the community level over time. A policy that affects the entire community should show effects at that level.

At the time Professor McDermott was with the Victorian Road Trauma Committee there were many serious problems with road injuries, and the desire to improve bicyclist safety was admirable. However, with hindsight, we can see that there were many other strategies and programs that improved the injury rates, but the helmet legislation was a negligible contribution.

At that time we didn't have the enormous problems with obesity, diabetes and renal failure that we do now. We know that helmets represent a barrier to people cycling and the health effects of more people cycling and being active far outweigh the injury.

One final point is about the way we talk about risk. The case-control studies that indicate that cyclists with head injuries admitted to hospital without helmets might have an increased-odds ratio of likelihood of injury of 20 or 30 per cent compared to wearing helmets make the risk seem higher than they really are.

The absolute risk of any individual on a bicycle getting a head injury might be in the order of one in a million, and even doubling the risk (an odds ratio of 2.0) to two in a million, it is still tiny. The known risks of getting overweight or developing diabetes from inactivity are many times more significant that the injury risk.

If helmet legislation was such a good idea, why hasn't the rest of the world followed suit? The fact is that in the countries with high cycling rates, Australia's helmet legislation is a joke.

Don't be sorry Damhool it's cool............ IDGARA about helmet discussions so I was simply placing some of my poor humour into a thread I don't care about so it's me that needs to keep out allowing folks to continue with the pages of dribble.

}SkOrPn--7 wrote:Don't be sorry Damhool it's cool............ IDGARA about helmet discussions so I was simply placing some of my poor humour into a thread I don't care about so it's me that needs to keep out allowing folks to continue with the pages of dribble.

nah it's ok i love humor.... And pineapple...

The dutch have one word to describe the aussie MHL, this word is ;SCHIJNVEILIGHEID !!

I also think people should take responsibilty for thier own actions - I don't want to see any more 'work' for the legal fraternity

I also want to see Australia's capital cities (and others) having successful on street rental bike cultures - mandatory helmet laws are a major hindrance to the uptake by tourists and other visitors to CBD areas who want to hire a bike on impulse.

I'm so indoctriated in helmet wearing now that I reckon I'd feel vulnerable on my bike/s without one..........

Last edited by open roader on Sat Aug 21, 2010 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

damhooligan wrote:here is what a professor say about them mandatory laws..

ProfessorChrisRissel wrote:I do not advocate for repealing seat-belt legislation, because the evidence is very, very strong that they reduced head injuries in the community.This is not the case with bicycle helmets.....

This is what Chris Rissel said earlier this year after trying to hold my wheel on the mad mile;

ProfessorChrisRissel wrote:Boy can you sprint Mike

I've ridden off and on with Chris over the last few years and I've never seen him ride a bike without a helmet on.

[mod helmet]I'm glad this idea is up and running, it will make life a lot easier for everyone who cares little for the topic, myself included.

I would request that since this is serious thread for serious posters that only serious posts be posted, seriously.

Also, I doubt that many of the mod squad will spend much time here, therefore any participants should kindly self moderate and if anything should slip through that participants notify the moderators by means of the "report post" button.

Finally, who thinks this thread should be stickied?

Shaun[/mod helmet]

...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.London Boy 29/12/2011

So we get the leaders we deserve and we elect, we get the companies and the products that we ask for, right? And we have to ask for different things. – Paul Gildingbut really, that's rubbish. We get none of it because the choices are illusory.

A helmet is a device that has the function of reducing injuries. Would it be satisfactory (or even better) if another device, that even more efectively prevents injury, was worn instead? For example, a fluoro vest as worn by EVERY person who works near a roadside. Truck drivers, local government workers, postal service etc etc. It's compulsory. It's probably been found, by the workers compensation insurance companies to be conclusively effective too. How about scrapping the Compulsory Helmet law and introducing a Compulsory High Visibility Clothing Law. For everyone within 1 metre of a road.

Baldy wrote:I think the only way that argument would make sense would be if riding a bike was the only possible form of exercise available to the people who dont like wearing a helmet.[flameproof helmet off]

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.